MVP debate: Who's most deserving? A.Rodgers - JJ Watt - T.Brady - P.Manning - D.Murray?

[Patler]

Claiming that a player who was winning the NFL MVP was really someone who the team was winning in spite of IS spitting on him. You can't cut it any other way. Favre took chances. He was a gunslinger. You have to take the good with the bad and accept it. Favre throws an INT...so what? It isn't IN SPITE of anything. That is who he is. He's also probably going to throw for 3 TDs too. That is also who he is.

Is a player who wins the MVP beyond reproach?
Why do you continue to focus on a single statement that is actually contrary to the overall intent of what I wrote?

You admit that you had to take the "good with the bad" with Favre. Well, the good was winning because of Favre and the bad was winning in spite of Favre. We really are not saying anything different. Yes, in many games the Packers won in spite of the bad Favre and an important factor in those wins was the good that Favre could do. As I said, they won because of Favre (the good) in spite of Favre (the bad). You really don't have to take offense just because I phrased the "good and bad" more graphically; winning because of Favre in spite of Favre.

Like I said...you can far more easily speak to his gaffes that during the Sherman years (when Favre actually had some offensive skill position talent around him) or his late diva years. However, there is no excuse for it during the MVP years, because Favre carried the offense.

I don't agree with that at all. Robert Brooks was a good receiver. Antonio Freeman was a good receiver. Mark Chmura and Keith Jackson were very good receiving tight ends, and gave them the combination at TE many fans yearn for today. Dorsey Levens and Edgar Bennett were perfect fits for what Holmgren wanted. Both were very good receiving backs, and capable runners. Henderson was Kuhn x2, a much better blocker, a better receiver and probably just as good when he carried the ball.

You don't bother to actually address any of the points I brought up regarding his surrounding talent. That clearly is part of it. Why is it only about Favre...and not about the talent around him?

Actually I did. I pointed out that he was fortunate to play with pretty good defenses, that did not give up a lot of points, thereby covering up for the "bad" that you got from Favre. The offense I address above, and I think he had a very solid supporting cast.

There is ALWAYS good and bad with any QB, Patler. That doesn't really define anything.

Agreed, they won because of Favre...........in spite of Favre

No, he was great because he overcame the deficiency in talent around him to post historically ridiculous numbers...which was what I addressed and you completely ignored. The Packers HAD to take chances those years because they didn't have any other talent to rely on. The Packers were fortunate to have the greatest gunslinger of all-time under center.

Wow. No respect for Brooks, Freeman, Jackson, Chmura, Bennett, Levens? If you fail to recognize the abilities in that group, we can not discuss this.

Any QB is fortunate to have that advantage. Bart Starr was fortunate to have the same thing several times, especially later in Lombardi's run. When the HOFers started to wane, such as 1967, the Packers CLEARLY won in spite of Starr often during the regular season.

That's MY point. The HALLOWED Bart Starr...who anyone would claim is BETTER than Favre...had a chance to actually play on an offense similar to Favre's MVP seasons in 1967. On a offense decimated by injury (just like Favre's in 1996)What did Starr post that year?

9 TDs. 17 INTs. Under 55% comp %.

You are so far off base in that one its amazing, and again are seeing only half the issue. Then and now, the players on that team have said they had no business winning it all that year, and the only reason they did was because of Bart Starr. He was beaten to crap that year, and just kept coming back. Many said he drove that team to the championship by shear will. It was that year that cemented his greatness as much as any other. The final drive in the Ice Bowl was all Starr, he would not let them lose. Starr won the Super Bowl MVP that year, and many suggested that it was for what he did to get the team there as much as it was for what he did in the game. Starr earned tremendous national respect that season.

It wasn't his best year statistically, and in that respect they may have won in spite of Starr, but they did so absolutely because of Starr.

It isn't easy to be a QB in the NFL without strong talent around you. It normally cripples even HOF caliber QBs. The fact that Favre was able to not only survive...but thrive...is what made him the clear MVP in those years. He was the Packer offense, so of course the team rode his highs and lows. There was NO ONE ELSE to ride.

If that isn't the definition of an MVP, I don't know what is.

I am just amazed that you do not see the talent the Packers had in those years.